Citation Nr: 21065357 Decision Date: 10/25/21 Archive Date: 10/25/21 DOCKET NO. 15-35 876 DATE: October 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for disability of the skin, to include recurrent malignant melanoma, status-post excision of right preauricular node and modified neck dissection; basal cell carcinoma; squamous cell carcinoma; and seborrheic keratosis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, to include a nerve disorder affecting the right eye, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety, including as secondary to a claimed skin disability, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to December 1968. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied, in pertinent part, entitlement to service connection for skin cancer, an eye condition, and depression, anxiety, and PTSD. The Veteran timely disagreed with and perfected an appeal to these denied claims. The Board remanded these matters in January 2020 and April 2021. In Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit held that once the Veteran raises a challenge to a VA examiner's competency to the Board, the presumption of competency is rebutted, and VA must satisfy its burden of persuasion as to the examiner's qualifications. The Federal Circuit also held that once the request is made for information as to the competency of the examiner, a veteran has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about the qualifications of a medical examiner as mandated by the VA's duty to assist. Id. at 1308. In an August 2021 letter, the Veteran's attorney challenged the competency of the VA examiner who provided an August 2020 and March 2021 medical opinion. He cited to dermatological research and VA research that contradicted the examiner's conclusion that the Veteran's various skin problems were not related to in-service sun exposure. He requested the curriculum vitae of the examiner, information pertaining the number of VA examinations the examiner had provided for the VA, and a list of any research articles published by this examiner. The Veteran's request is reasonable. Moreover, given the arguments made, an addendum opinion should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO is asked to undertake reasonable efforts to obtain curriculum vitae and other credentialing information for the physician who provided the August 3, 2020, and May 26, 2021 opinions. If possible, provide the Veteran and his representative with the number of VA examinations this examiner has provided for the VA and a list of any research articles published by this examiner, or other documentation detailing the examiners qualifications. Associate the requested material with the claims file and provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy. If the requested material is unable to be located, the Veteran should be so advised and the reasons for such should be noted in the record. 2. After the above evidentiary development is complete, obtain an addendum opinion from the VA examiner who completed the August 3, 2020, and May 26, 2021 opinions medical opinion. If that examiner is unavailable, then an addendum should be obtained from a specialist capable of providing an opinion in the field of dermatology. A new physical examination should be afforded to the Veteran if deemed necessary. With respect to the Veteran's recurrent malignant melanoma, status-post excision of right preauricular node and modified neck dissection; basal cell carcinoma; squamous cell carcinoma; and/or seborrheic keratosis , the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is as least likely as not that the disability had its initial onset or is otherwise etiologically to the Veteran's active service. The examiner must address the clinical significance of that the Veteran's service involved excessive sun exposure while working long hours on the decks of his assigned ship during his service in the Navy, frequently without a shirt on, without the use of sunscreen or any shade from the sun, and while sailing through tropical regions. The examiner must also address the evidence and argument provided by the Veteran's attorney in his August 5, 2021, correspondence. Such must include the discussion of the article titled Melanoma Research Program, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs; found at https://cdmrp.army.mil/mrp/default. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Smith, Associate Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.